On 2008-01-22 10:08, stlatos wrote:
> There are "corresponding" -no- nouns to some of them; that's part of
> my point (see previous).
Such *-no- nouns would not have been formed to *-men- abstracts but
directly to the verb roots (as substabtivised deverbal adjectives). The
problem is that there were a number of formations involving *-m-, *-n-,
*-mn- (~ *-m.m- ~ *-n.n-), not to mention *-mh1n-, and they are quite
difficult to unravel. Some of them seems to go back to a common type,
others seem to be independent. One characteristic formal difference
between the "signum" type and the "ogmos" type is the vowel grade, but
there are also semantic differences, *sek-no- retaining its
quasi-participial meaning 'scored mark' and *h2óg^-mo- meaning 'related
to *h2ag^mn. [motion, passage]', hence e.g. track, furrow, career'
rather than 'something driven'.
Piotr